= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pedanterrific comments on Better Disagreement - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (84)
Even DH7 presumes that the argument is wrong to begin with, which is not overly rational.
How about:
DH8, Clarifying When the Central Point is Indeed Valid. E.g. "A model of a supernatural entity as an ancestral simulator can be derived from the Simulation Argument framework. The validity of this framework and its approach to the question of Origin is now examined..."
or even
DH9, Update Your Model Based on Opposing Views. E.g. Given the <opposing argument>, which appears to be valid provided the <following conditions> hold, I have updated my priors to account for the Universe as described by <opponent>. The next order of business is to jointly examine our priors and come up with a more reliable model.
("DH" stands for disagreement hierarchy.)
That doesn't seem to diminish shminux's point. The highest level of disagreement should be when one no longer has a disagreement. That should be the goal.
I understand the basic idea, AAT and all that. I'm just saying that if I set out to describe and rank the ways in which people express disagreement, "I agree" wouldn't be on the list.
Edit: That is, it's not that DH7 assumes the argument is wrong, just that you disagree with it. As long as you disagree, it's generally "better" - less logically rude - to use higher levels of the hierarchy than lower. If you find that you can't, then it might be time to update towards your opponent.
So maybe rename it a dialogue hierarchy?